alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- The Newark (Delaware) Police Department: To Protect and Embrace
        - Public Agencies Head Online to Poll Residents, Gather Input 
        - When Serving Meets Surviving – Officer Mindset Matters
        - Operation Understanding DC

Subscribe

 The Beat

 Learning

 Archives

### Operation Understanding DC

For over twenty years, Operation Understanding DC has worked to bring together African American and Jewish teens for a year-long  leadership development program to learn about each other's culture and has built a  generation of African-American and Jewish community leaders who promote  cultural respect and understanding in the community. Each year, OUDC brings  together 24 high school students from around the DC region to participate in  bi-monthly weekend retreats that break down barriers and enable the young  people to know each other on a meaningful level.   In addition, students learn about different  cultures, religions, history and the struggle for civil rights in the United  States. The culmination is a Summer Journey conducted every July over nine states  and nineteen cities in New York and across the south, where participants speak  with civil rights leaders, follow the historic Freedom Rides of the 1960s, and  visit landmarks in the civil rights movement.  

      In June, Program Director Avi Edelman  and two program alumni students conducted a presentation at the COPS Office to  provide information about OUDC and lead participants in exercises about  perception and cultural understanding. Edelman explained that the same  cognitive processes individuals use to organize and filter information can also  lead to misperception and misunderstanding between community members and groups  of people. To counter unconscious bias, Edelman and the alumni students  initiated dialogues about privilege awareness, perception, and prejudice-reduction,  helping COPS staff to lean into discomfort and explore the lenses through which  all of us view our worlds.

        During the last two  decades, more than 500  students and their families have directly participated in OUDC’s award-winning  program, and through their outreach efforts over 65,000 students and adults  have participated in workshops, speeches, and information sessions about bias,  discrimination and respect for other cultures. Operation Understanding DC  alumni live across the country and can provide resources for law enforcement  agencies and community groups interested in learning how to overcome bias and  increase respect for all community members. Program Director Avi Edelman  welcomes calls (202-234-6832) or emails (aedelman@oudc.org)  about the OUDC program, and more information is available at the OUDC website. 

**Back to top**

COPS Office Photo Contest – July Winner | Public Agencies Head Online to Poll Residents, Gather Input | When Serving Meets Surviving – Officer Mindset Matters | Operation Understanding DC

Privacy PolicyUS. Department of JusticeLegal Policies and DisclaimersAccessibilityNo FEAR ActContact UsFAQslep.govregulations.gov
§ 86.101 How do I ask for a revision of a grant? ( a ) You must ask for a revision of a grant by sending us the following documents: ( 1 ) The standard form used to apply for Federal assistance, which is available at *http://www.grants.gov .* You must use this form to update or ask for a change in the information that you included in the approved grant application. The authorized representative of your agency must certify this form.
( 2 ) A statement attached to the standard form at paragraph (a)(1) of this section that explains: ( i ) The proposed changes and how the revision would affect the information that you submitted with the original grant application; and
( ii ) Why the revision is necessary.
( b ) You must send any revision of the scope to your State Clearinghouse or Single Point of Contact if your State supports this process under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
§ 80.55 May an agency receive a grant to carry out part of a larger project? A State fish and wildlife agency may receive a grant to carry out part of a larger project that uses funds unrelated to the grant. The grant-funded part of the larger project must: ( a ) Result in an identifiable outcome consistent with the purposes of the grant program;
( b ) Be substantial in character and design;
( c ) Meet the requirements of §§ 80.130 through 80.136 for any real property acquired under the grant and any capital improvements completed under the grant; and
( d ) Meet all other requirements of the grant program.
###### Editorial Note on Part 648

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

#### § 648.205 VMS requirements.

The owner or operator any vessel issued a limited access herring permit (*i.e.,* Category A, B, or C) or Category E Herring Permit, with the exception of fixed gear fishermen, must install and operate a VMS unit consistent with the requirements of § 648.9. The VMS unit must be installed on board, and must be operable before the vessel may begin fishing. Atlantic herring carrier vessels are not required to have VMS (See § 648.10(m) for VMS notification requirements.).

[85 FR 26886, May 6, 2020]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CONCEPSION SANCHEZ DE

OROZCO, a.k.a. Concepcion SanchezRivera,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70813

Agency No. A077-463-527

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Maria Concepsion Sanchez De Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for

FILED

MAR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70813

cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination,

Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo

claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS,

321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sanchez De

Orozco did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the

record includes a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal as well as other

government documents corroborating the expedited removal. See Juarez-Ramos v.

Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited removal order interrupts an

alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

Sanchez De Orozco’s due process claim fails because the IJ properly denied

her cancellation application on the basis that she failed to establish the requisite

continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due

process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

111.1 

CA 13-01529 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

SHIKEMA WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATES 

OF FREDERICK VELEZ AND CHRISTINE COX, DECEASED, 

FREDERICK HALL, AND SHAMIA HALL, BY HER MOTHER 

AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SABRINA HALL, 

CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

BENNO & ASSOCIATES P.C., NEW YORK CITY (AMEER BENNO OF COUNSEL), AND

JEFFREY A. ROTHMAN, FOR CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Glen T. Bruening,

J.), entered November 7, 2012. The order, inter alia, denied in part

the motion of claimants for leave to file a late claim. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimants appeal from an order denying those parts

of their motion for permission to file a late claim against defendant

with respect to claims for damages under theories of constitutional

tort and negligent training, arising from the stabbing death of

decedent Frederick Velez, an inmate in a correctional facility. We

affirm. “The Court of Claims has broad discretion in determining

whether to grant or deny an application for permission to file a late

. . . claim and its decision will not be disturbed absent a clear

abuse of that discretion” (Matter of Martinez v State of New York, 62

AD3d 1225, 1226; see Collins v State of New York, 69 AD3d 46, 48). 

Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that part of

the motion with respect to the proposed constitutional tort theory

(see generally Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83). To

the contrary, “recognition of the claimant[s’] State constitutional

claims was neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure the full

realization of [their] rights, because the alleged wrongs could have

been redressed by . . . timely interposed common-law tort claims”

(Lyles v State of New York, 2 AD3d 694, 695, affd 3 NY3d 396; see

Peterec v State of New York, 124 AD3d 858, 859; Shelton v New York

State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1150). 
-2- 111.1 

CA 13-01529 

We also reject claimants’ contention that the court abused its

discretion in denying that part of the motion with respect to the

proposed negligent training theory. A claim that defendant, as an

employer, was “negligent in failing ‘to properly interview, hire,

train, supervise, and monitor’ its employees . . . ‘does not lie

where, as here, the employee is acting within the scope of his or her

employment, thereby rendering the employer liable for damages caused

by the employee’s negligence under the [alternative] theory of

respondeat superior’ ” (Drisdom v Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr., 53

AD3d 1142, 1143; see Brown v State of New York, 45 AD3d 15, 26-27, lv

denied 9 NY3d 815; see generally Leftenant v City of New York, 70 AD3d

596, 597). 

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### § 665.805 [Reserved]
**Exhibit
        23.1**




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











As
      independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
      incorporation of our report dated September 27, 2006 relating to the
      consolidated  financial
      statements of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc. and subsidiaries for the years
      ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 included in this Form 10-KSB, into the Company’s
      previously filed Registration Statement Nos. 333-35884, 333-87977 and 333-66297
      on Form S-3, Registration Statement Nos. 333-89989, 333-94125, 33-72108,
      333-97525, 333-110946 and 333-128628 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement
      No. 333-136033 on Form SB-2.








/s/
      Vitale, Caturano & Company, Ltd.





VITALE,
      CATURANO & COMPANY, LTD.






October
      13, 2006


Boston,
      Massachusetts
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical Makeover  Corporation of
America  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ending June 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Periodic Report"),  I, Robert Rudman , Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18.U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Periodic  Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



    /s/  Robert Rudman
----------------------------------
    Chief Financial Officer
    August 23, 2006





--------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.194 Adjustment of management measures. In accordance with the framework procedures of the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, the RA may establish or modify the items specified in paragraph (a) of this section for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and wreckfish, or paragraph (b) of this section for sea turtles and other protected species. ( a ) Biomass levels, age-structured analyses, target dates for rebuilding overfished species, maximum sustainable yield (or its proxy), optimum yield, acceptable biological catch, total allowable catch, quotas (including a quota of zero), annual catch limits, annual catch targets, accountability measures, maximum fishing mortality threshold, minimum stock size threshold, trip limits, bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition), seasonal or area closures, fishing year, rebuilding plans, definitions of essential fish habitat (EFH), establishment of or modifications to EFH habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) or coral HAPCs, restrictions on gear and fishing activities applicable in EFH and EFH HAPCs, establish or modify spawning SMZs, and allow transfer of the unharvested total or sector ACL to the following fishing year.
( b ) Possession, specifications, and use of required release gear and handling requirements for sea turtles and other protected species.
[78 FR 22952, Apr. 17, 2013, as amended at 78 FR 23863 Apr. 23, 2013; 82 FR 29776, June 30, 2017; 84 FR 67238, Dec. 9, 2019; 89 FR 276, Jan. 3, 2024]
# Map            Niger.
# Map            Japan.
Exhibit 32

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Food Technology Service, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2005 (the "Report"),
Richard G. Hunter, as Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

March 28, 2005


                                          / s /  Richard G. Hunter, Ph.D.

                                          Chief Executive and Financial Officer
Gormas, Michael (OST) 

From: Dawn Jackson > 

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:16 PM 

To: Gormas, Michael (OST) 

Subject: Support for Harris Air proposal for EAS proposal for Kake, AK 

Importance: High 

Mr. Gormas, 

As a private citizen of Kake, AK, I would like to express my support for Harris Air on the proposal for Essential 

Air Service contract in Kake starting fall of 2014. I have experienced nothing but good service from the 

company for over a decade, and appreciate that they're the only airline who flies IFR in and out of Kake when 

other airlines haven't; in recent past, Air Excursions will cancel for days, limiting any kind of mail in and out of 

Kake. This hinders bills paid in a timely matter, and people having to pay in Juneau to stay in a hotel, which is 

very spendy. I have had nothing but trust in Harris Air's pilots to fly IFR for all these years and know I can 

continue to do such in the future~ 

I hope their proposal is viewed favorably. 

Gunalcheesh, Dawn Jackson 

P.O. Box 105 

Kake, AK 99830 

(907) 952-1659 

1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Estate of Ramona Ledezma, 

Deceased,

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00019-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of Webb County, Texas 

(TC# 2021-PB-9000076-L2)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter’s second request for an extension of time within 

which to file the Reporter’s Record until February 24, 2023. NO FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Roxann G. Soto-Serna, Court Reporter for the county Court 

at 

Law No. 2 for Webb County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the above styled and 

numbered cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before February 24, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25thday of January, 2023.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 660

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

#### § 660.65 Groundfish harvest specifications.

Harvest specifications include OFLs, ABCs, and the designation of OYs and ACLs. Management measures necessary to keep catch within the ACL include ACTs, harvest guidelines (HGs), or quotas for species that need individual management, and the allocation of fishery HGs between the trawl and nontrawl segments of the fishery, and the allocation of commercial HGs between the open access and limited entry segments of the fishery. These specifications include fish caught in state ocean waters (0-3 nm offshore) as well as fish caught in the EEZ (3-200 nm offshore). Harvest specifications are provided in Tables 1a through 2d of this subpart.

[76 FR 27530, May 11, 2011]
#### § 80.97 May an agency barter goods or services to carry out a grant-funded project?

Yes. A State fish and wildlife agency may barter to carry out a grant-funded project. A barter transaction is the exchange of goods or services for other goods or services without the use of cash. Barter transactions are subject to the cost principles at 2 CFR part 200.

[84 FR 44787, Aug. 27, 2019]
§ 1192.93 Doorways. ( a ) *Clear width.* ( 1 ) At least one door on each side of the car from which passengers board opening onto station platforms and at least one adjacent doorway into the passenger coach compartment, if provided, shall have a minimum clear opening of 32 inches.
( 2 ) If doorways connecting adjoining cars in a multi-car train are provided, and if such doorway is connected by an aisle with a minimum clear width of 30 inches to one or more spaces where wheelchair or mobility aid users can be accommodated, then such doorway shall have, to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the regulations issued under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (49 CFR parts 229 and 231), a clear opening of 30 inches.
( b ) *Passageways.* A route at least 32 inches wide shall be provided from doors required to be accessible by paragraph (a)(1) of this section to seating locations complying with § 1192.95(d). In cars where such doorways require passage through a vestibule, such vestibule shall have a minimum width of 42 inches. (See Fig. 3)
( c ) *Signals.* If doors to the platform close automatically or from a remote location, auditory and visual warning signals shall be provided to alert passengers of closing doors.
( d ) *Coordination with boarding platform* — ( 1 ) *Requirements.* Cars operating in stations with high platforms, or mini-high platforms, shall be coordinated with the boarding platform design such that the horizontal gap between a car at rest and the platform shall be no greater than 3 inches and the height of the car floor shall be within plus or minus 5 ⁄ 8 inch of the platform height. Vertical alignment may be accomplished by car air suspension, platform lifts or other devices, or any combination.
( 2 ) *Exception.* New vehicles operating in existing stations may have a floor height within plus or minus 11 ⁄ 2 inches of the platform height. At key stations, the horizontal gap between at least one accessible door of each such vehicle and the platform shall be no greater than 3 inches.
( 3 ) *Exception.* Where platform set-backs do not allow the horizontal gap or vertical alignment specified in paragraph (d) (1) or (2) of this section, car, platform or portable lifts complying with § 1192.95(b), or car or platform ramps or bridge plates, complying with § 1192.95(c), shall be provided.
( 4 ) *Exception.* Retrofitted vehicles shall be coordinated with the platform in new and key stations such that the horizontal gap shall be no greater than 4 inches and the height of the vehicle floor, under 50% passenger load, shall be within plus or minus 2 inches of the platform height.
( e ) *Signage.* The International Symbol of Accessibility shall be displayed on the exterior of all doors complying with this section unless all cars are accessible and are not marked by the access symbol (See Fig. 6). Appropriate signage shall also indicate which accessible doors are adjacent to an accessible restroom, if applicable.
B 2100A Form (2100A) (12/15) United States Bankruptcy Court

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 

In Re: Case No. 1627915

DARYL HOPKINS

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE, or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111 (a). Transferee hereby gives

evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim

referenced in this evidence and notice.

PRA Receivables Management, LLC., as agent of

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Springleaf Financial Services

--------------------------------------------

Name of Transferee

--------------------------------------------

Name of Transferor

Name and Address where notices to transferee

should be sent: 

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

POB 41067

Norfolk, VA 23541

Court Claim # (if known): 5

Amount of Claim: $3,969.93

Date Claim Filed: 09/23/2016

Phone: (877)829-8298 

Last Four Digits of Acct # : 3975 

Name and Address where transferee payments

Should be sent (if different from above)

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

POB 12914

Norfolk, VA 23541

Phone: (877)829-8298

Last Four Digits of Acct # : 3975

Phone:

Last Four Digits of Acct #: 3975 

Seller Information

ONEMAIN CONSUMER LOAN, INC. F/K/A

SPRINGLEAF CONSUMER LOAN, INC

601 NW Second Street

Evansville IN 47708

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

By: /s/ Victor Munson

 --------------------------------------------

 Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Email: Bankruptcy_Info@portfoliorecovery.com

 Date: 4/28/2017

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571

Case 16-27915 Doc 51 Filed 05/01/17 Entered 05/01/17 12:09:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-27915 Doc 51 Filed 05/01/17 Entered 05/01/17 12:09:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2